No your right,
My bad
- i pick up on quotes and foolishy get sucked into them.For example :-
“We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
— Ariel Sharon
Israeli Prime Minister
Knesset, Tel Aviv, October 3, 2001
Speaking my brains...
- Thread starter Justin Owen
- Start date
- Status
My bad
- i pick up on quotes and foolishy get sucked into them.For example :-
“We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
— Ariel Sharon
Israeli Prime Minister
Knesset, Tel Aviv, October 3, 2001
Personally this is a VERY different approach I have here but, I think that we should let security lapse in my Nation and maybe even the U.S. Then when a terrorist attack is (and I do strees the fact that it a dead certainty) implemented then that willl be more than enough proof to the world that these wars are justified. He is a potent threat not to the US or Britain, that is stated by politicians in order to back support, but to the surrounding nations of Iraq and more so to the people in his own country. At the time of WW2 the murdering of Jews was not known to the British public and yet even then Hitler was regarded asd the most evil monster in the world. Now in a time when war is upon us once more, or them to be more precise, we must nver forget how histroy will judge us or him.
However I MUST add that it is my belief, and im not alone here, that America's only interest in the Gulf is it's oil. America has enough oil reserves on it's own turf to support them, in a time of full nuclear war or the 'dry fuel' period of the future, for 50 years. Even that number is understated. Why else would America have such concern in the middle east, they have never concerned themselves with the suffering of people in places like Kosovo unless the UN requested troops and medical aid.
Also that George Bush said to Sadams troops " Do not burn oil fields which are of high profit to the people of Iraq". I don't believe for a nano second that he gives a monkies about the economic state of Iraq. Also interesting enough was that in last night's specail opps raids two of an intended three oil fileds were captured. America is primarily concerned about the oil for themselves and that is a position which I will not back down from and has yet to be proven otherwise.
However I MUST add that it is my belief, and im not alone here, that America's only interest in the Gulf is it's oil. America has enough oil reserves on it's own turf to support them, in a time of full nuclear war or the 'dry fuel' period of the future, for 50 years. Even that number is understated. Why else would America have such concern in the middle east, they have never concerned themselves with the suffering of people in places like Kosovo unless the UN requested troops and medical aid.
Also that George Bush said to Sadams troops " Do not burn oil fields which are of high profit to the people of Iraq". I don't believe for a nano second that he gives a monkies about the economic state of Iraq. Also interesting enough was that in last night's specail opps raids two of an intended three oil fileds were captured. America is primarily concerned about the oil for themselves and that is a position which I will not back down from and has yet to be proven otherwise.
Egg,
I disagree, and I'll explain why.
From a purely economic point of view, and that of the UK/US oil companies an oil grab don't add up. Unless you've recently won the Nobel Prize for economics, there is'nt a viable arguement to support the notion of a US oil grab for the US economy. I relay the facts again:
At it's peak the (1980), Iraq could only produce 3.1m barrels a day (this equats to 3% of global production today.
Given the abuse and years of neglect Iraq can at a maximum prior to this gulf war only produce 2.8m barrels a day (declining fast)
It would take till 2010 to increase oil production to 5.5m barrels a day (equivalent to US, Russia and Saudi), at a cost well in excess of 20bn.
The Kuwaiti govt offered to hand over part of it's oil industry in the wake of the last gulf war, if the US were so desperate for oil this would have taken place. You know how much influence the US has over Kuwaiti oil? None, nadda zip etc.
Even assuming some divine intervention with immdeiate increases in oil production to say 6m barrels a day, the new Iraq (and it's US puppet masters you believe in) would'nt benefit from flooding the world markets with oil as it would push the price down. This means less revenue, less profit etc etc etc.
When push comes to shove, the US could go into Alaska, although the environmentalists don't like this idea, it could happen.
The only conspiracy theory (some people always need one), which makes even the slightest bit of sense to explain a War in Iraq is US fear of Chinese expansion. China and India will be by far the biggest consumer of oil in the near future, much of this they will have to import. Given their expansionist aims on the whole of Asia and the fundemental beliefs in Yin Yang and all that shiznit, places a threat to Global stability and peace. The US may be trying to shore up stability in the Middle east to counter this (far greater) future threat. Any other economic arguement is Poo, besides it would cost the US much much less to invest in Oil production in Russia / Siberia thus increasing their influence over the Russian govt (with the benefit of getting an old enemy on side).
Still your free to believe in what you want, Santa Claus, tooth fairy etc etc.
I disagree, and I'll explain why.
From a purely economic point of view, and that of the UK/US oil companies an oil grab don't add up. Unless you've recently won the Nobel Prize for economics, there is'nt a viable arguement to support the notion of a US oil grab for the US economy. I relay the facts again:
At it's peak the (1980), Iraq could only produce 3.1m barrels a day (this equats to 3% of global production today.
Given the abuse and years of neglect Iraq can at a maximum prior to this gulf war only produce 2.8m barrels a day (declining fast)
It would take till 2010 to increase oil production to 5.5m barrels a day (equivalent to US, Russia and Saudi), at a cost well in excess of 20bn.
The Kuwaiti govt offered to hand over part of it's oil industry in the wake of the last gulf war, if the US were so desperate for oil this would have taken place. You know how much influence the US has over Kuwaiti oil? None, nadda zip etc.
Even assuming some divine intervention with immdeiate increases in oil production to say 6m barrels a day, the new Iraq (and it's US puppet masters you believe in) would'nt benefit from flooding the world markets with oil as it would push the price down. This means less revenue, less profit etc etc etc.
When push comes to shove, the US could go into Alaska, although the environmentalists don't like this idea, it could happen.
The only conspiracy theory (some people always need one), which makes even the slightest bit of sense to explain a War in Iraq is US fear of Chinese expansion. China and India will be by far the biggest consumer of oil in the near future, much of this they will have to import. Given their expansionist aims on the whole of Asia and the fundemental beliefs in Yin Yang and all that shiznit, places a threat to Global stability and peace. The US may be trying to shore up stability in the Middle east to counter this (far greater) future threat. Any other economic arguement is Poo, besides it would cost the US much much less to invest in Oil production in Russia / Siberia thus increasing their influence over the Russian govt (with the benefit of getting an old enemy on side).
Still your free to believe in what you want, Santa Claus, tooth fairy etc etc.
D
duffistuta
Guest
I don't think it's about oil, but you are ignoring on argument which is mooted; that granted, Iraq's oil may not be important to the US per se, but it could make some companies a lot of money - companies which members of the current US administration are heavily involved in.
When people say it's about oil, I think they are assigning dubious motives to individuals in the Govt., not the Govt. as a whole. Bush has already been in trouble for dodgy dealing...
When people say it's about oil, I think they are assigning dubious motives to individuals in the Govt., not the Govt. as a whole. Bush has already been in trouble for dodgy dealing...
D
duffistuta
Guest
Oh, and to carry on Magued's point
I've said this before, but hey, I'm boring so I'll repeat myself...
Israeli attacks on Lebanon in the early 90s were not responded to by the Palestinians, despite killing many civilians. In 1993, these attacks elicited retaliation by Hizbollah, to which Israel responded by invading Lebanon. An agreement was reached to restrict military actions by either side to Israel's "security zone" in Lebanon. Israel has ignored the agreement, attacking elsewhere at will.
The day that Prime Minister Shimon Peres took office after the Rabin assassination in November 1995, the New York Times reported that Israeli warplanes attacked targets near Beirut, demonstrating that Peres would maintain Rabin's hard line. So matters continued, occasionally receiving brief notice in the press, but not often, as on March 21 1996, when Israel attacked Muslim villages north of the "security zone" in retaliation for attacks on its occupying army. The standard story in U.S. commentary is that "the accord had largely held until [April 1996], when Hizbollah resumed its attacks" (New York Times). The slightest attention to facts PROVES THIS TO BE A LIE.
The US wants to modify the 1993 agreement to require that all actions against the Israeli occupying forces cease, and that Hizbollah disarm; Lebanon rejected the proposal, insisting on the right of resistance to foreign occupation THAT WAS ENDORSED BY THE UN in 1987 by a vote of 153-2 (U.S. and Israel opposed, Honduras alone abstaining)...
This is still unreported in the U.S.
I've said this before, but hey, I'm boring so I'll repeat myself...
Israeli attacks on Lebanon in the early 90s were not responded to by the Palestinians, despite killing many civilians. In 1993, these attacks elicited retaliation by Hizbollah, to which Israel responded by invading Lebanon. An agreement was reached to restrict military actions by either side to Israel's "security zone" in Lebanon. Israel has ignored the agreement, attacking elsewhere at will.
The day that Prime Minister Shimon Peres took office after the Rabin assassination in November 1995, the New York Times reported that Israeli warplanes attacked targets near Beirut, demonstrating that Peres would maintain Rabin's hard line. So matters continued, occasionally receiving brief notice in the press, but not often, as on March 21 1996, when Israel attacked Muslim villages north of the "security zone" in retaliation for attacks on its occupying army. The standard story in U.S. commentary is that "the accord had largely held until [April 1996], when Hizbollah resumed its attacks" (New York Times). The slightest attention to facts PROVES THIS TO BE A LIE.
The US wants to modify the 1993 agreement to require that all actions against the Israeli occupying forces cease, and that Hizbollah disarm; Lebanon rejected the proposal, insisting on the right of resistance to foreign occupation THAT WAS ENDORSED BY THE UN in 1987 by a vote of 153-2 (U.S. and Israel opposed, Honduras alone abstaining)...
This is still unreported in the U.S.
Actually to a point Duffy you are correct. Stability in the oil markets does make a huge difference to those people in question (share options etc), however the cost of the war and reconctruction costs make an "oil grab" unfeasible in the extreme (unless they're playing the looooooooooooooong game). I concede the point (to a degree).
An interesting quote I just stumbled across...
Is this relevant?
Is this relevant?
Have we all failed by the fact that we have to resort to violence?
D
duffistuta
Guest
UK attitude Vs US
This is interesting...
>>>Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins gave the battlegroup of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish the pep talk as the US deadline for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq or face action ticked away.
Reporters said the men listened in silence to the address at Fort Blair Mayne desert camp, 20 miles from the Iraqi border.
"We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country," he said.
"We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.
"There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.
"As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.
"Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there.
"You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.
"You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.
"Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.
"If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.
"Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves."
To his 800 men - an arm of the 16 Air Assault Brigade - he said: "It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign.
"We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow.
"The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.
"There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam.
"He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity."
He said: "It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly.
"I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.
"If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.
"The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please."
He warned the troops not to get carried away in the heat of battle.
"If you harm the regiment or its history by over enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer.
"You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation."
Warning that the troops were very likely to face chemical or biological weapons, he said: "It is not a question of if, it's a question of when. We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack."
His closing words were resolute: "As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there. Our business now is north."
In Contradiction it was reported that one of the leading American Officers had addressed his tropps with "It's Hammer Time"....and a US Stars and Stripes flag was hoisted above the new port town of Umm Qasr just over the Iraqi border from Kuwait. Umm Qasr was taken after British Royal Marine Commandos troops were called in to break the fierce Iraqi resistance which pinned down American troops for two hours.<<<
A reflection of the different nations approach to war, or just one of those things?
This is interesting...
>>>Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins gave the battlegroup of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish the pep talk as the US deadline for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq or face action ticked away.
Reporters said the men listened in silence to the address at Fort Blair Mayne desert camp, 20 miles from the Iraqi border.
"We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country," he said.
"We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.
"There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.
"As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.
"Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there.
"You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.
"You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.
"Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.
"If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.
"Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves."
To his 800 men - an arm of the 16 Air Assault Brigade - he said: "It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign.
"We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow.
"The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.
"There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam.
"He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity."
He said: "It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly.
"I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.
"If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.
"The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please."
He warned the troops not to get carried away in the heat of battle.
"If you harm the regiment or its history by over enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer.
"You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation."
Warning that the troops were very likely to face chemical or biological weapons, he said: "It is not a question of if, it's a question of when. We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack."
His closing words were resolute: "As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there. Our business now is north."
In Contradiction it was reported that one of the leading American Officers had addressed his tropps with "It's Hammer Time"....and a US Stars and Stripes flag was hoisted above the new port town of Umm Qasr just over the Iraqi border from Kuwait. Umm Qasr was taken after British Royal Marine Commandos troops were called in to break the fierce Iraqi resistance which pinned down American troops for two hours.<<<
A reflection of the different nations approach to war, or just one of those things?
UK attitude Vs US
Another note the B-52's are attacking in an hour.
Both unfortuantley, the British share decency with tact - whilst unforunatley America comes across as more "direct / gun'ho".
Another note the B-52's are attacking in an hour.
I understood that our tanks were even prohibited from flying the American flag. Haven't heard about Umm Qasr... if true, that is a shame.
The speech as reported by Col. Collins struck me as honorable and intelligent. I hope that we have such men leading our troops.
The speech as reported by Col. Collins struck me as honorable and intelligent. I hope that we have such men leading our troops.
- Status